Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago:1968


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. While all users are welcome and noone's !vote is more important than someone elses, here the only ones in favor of keeping where those associated with the subject,. That said, the consensus, even if the discussion is long, is for deletion.  So Why  09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicago:1968

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is essentially an ad placed here by the artist who draws the strip (username: LenKody). Speedy and prod tags were deleted by an anonymous IP who has a very similar edit list to LenKody. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is objective. There is no "advertising language" used in the body of the article. There are already red links looking for the article in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is objective

comment: above comment (unsigned) reformatted as use of section heading was screwing up the format of the rest of today's AfD MadScot (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * comment For my own part, article does not appear to meet GNG; no WP:RS cited, and no real assertion of notability either. I won't !vote yet, because I can't do a thorough check for sources, but it looks weak right now. MadScot (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No advertising language is necessary to demonstrate the nature of the author's edits, all of which have been to promote his webcomic. These included additions to articles about Richard J. Daley and Abbie Hoffman that said "Richard J. Daley appears as a character in the weekly webcomic Chicago:1968" and "Abbie Hoffman appears as a character in the weekly webcomic Chicago:1968".  This is not the place to promote books, businesses, candidacies... or web comics. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete It is simply a more in depth look a piece of work that is already mentioned (and linked) on the site. For reference, here is the Shadowline page and a link to another piece of work entitled Platinum Grit listed there.


 * I see no difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete Despite what some might perceive the author's intentions to be for writing the article, the article is objective and informative. Perceived intent shouldn't interfere with the evaluation of the finished product.  In fact, the intent of writing the article is to compliment and more fully flesh out the information provided on the Shadowline  article on Wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In Closing I've learned a lot about what Wikipedia finds acceptable and what it doesn't through the method of experience. I took that experience and did my best to create an objective and informational an article, taking great pains to not even have a hint of what might seem like an ad. I believe the article is necessary and unbiased --Lenkody (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles included on Wikipedia have to demonstrate notability. This is determined by showing they have been covered by newspaper, media, or other mainstream media. You can enter wp: notability and wp: references in the search box for more information. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability Most notably, Chicago:1968 was covered twice by the Chicago Tribune's arts and entertainment paper, the RedEye. It's also been covered by independent comics media outlets. And is affiliated with Image Comics' Shadowline imprint, a long established publisher with a community of webcomics (some of which already have their own wikipedia entries).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP I'm the person most recently held responsible for keeping the Shadowline wiki page updated. There are numerous other stubs and articles which began this very same way. As the Shadowline Wiki already made reference to Chicago:1968 months ago and in conjunction with the other references in the media to Chicago: 1968 I believe this article should not be deleted. It is not an advertisement any more than the Wiki page for Law and Order is an advertisement for the TV show. Give the page time to develop. Should we really not allow the creator to recognize that there are parallels to be drawn between the Convention (and election) 40 years ago to what happened this past year. This page will certainly draw parallels to both eras as the webcomic evolves along with this article. Please don't be so aggressive with deletion. As the rules of Wikipedia Deletion state, not all articles are created equally in the beginning.  Supermarc (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you? Since you say you keep the Shadowline page updated I'm assuming you have another user name. It makes things easier if you keep all your wiki edits under the same username. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm Me This is my only username and I only signed up for this today. My prior work on the Shadowline Wiki was prior to me signing up for one.  My real name is Marc Lombardi and I do freelance work for Shadowline comics. Supermarc (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood your original statement. (I thought you had been saying you were a wikipedia editor who kept the wikipedia Shadowline page up to date. Since this clearly wasn't the case I assumed you had two names). I understand now. Welcome. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome. Very much appreciated, especially coming from someone who has done so much for Wikipedia (12,000+ contributions is incredible!).  Please understand that while it may appear that I have a conflict of interest in adding content to the Shadowline page, I do take pride in my ability to remain neutral in the content that I add and only alter/edit information that is not factual or grammatically incorrect.  I imagine that my time served editing and writing for magazines has helped me with this endeavor.  I do hope that you reconsider the request for deletion on this article as, in time to come, there will be relevance.  I trust Len to his word that this will not be a self-serving, ad-based article. Supermarc (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We'd probably be better off all working together on this one. It's clear that I have no idea what I'm doing.--Lenkody (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. RayAYang (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * RayAYang Read what you linked please. Explain to me how the Chicago Tribune is not a "reliable secondary source" or not "independent" of this piece of work. As Supermarc stated above, it is no different than any other page on this site that talks about other topics on various media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the comments made by experienced editors and fixing the article accordingly. Have you added the articles you mention and cited them? Are they sufficient to establish notability according to the guidelines I suggested you read? This is more effective than arguing, people can change their votes and be asked to reconsider. But something has to change to warrant their reconsideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * adding... One of the Tribune links is already up. I'll add some more of the press to the external links section.  Remember this is just the stub.  There is lots of room for this article to grow.  The content goes beyond webcomics to address history and present day politics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:RS, serious WP:COI. This AfD appears to have been compromised by sock puppeteering/vote stacking. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's make some introductions... Because there's some accusations being thrown around, lets be clear who is who. I'm LenKody.  Supermarc is the webguy for Shadowline.  JoeKody is my brother.  We are all separate people.  We all support retaining the article.


 * There is nothing illegitimate about the entry in question. Wiki is loaded with entries for other comic book periodicals, so to single out this one for no earthly reason is questionable. Len is remaining very respectable in this matter, and the in-house biasness being exhibited by Wiki-mods is revolting. -Richard Caldwell/nilskidoo


 * comment This article was speedy deleted before as G11: blatant advertising. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * comment that's why I fixed it. I took all my bias out.--Lenkody (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam; the lack of promotional language does not disguise the promotional intent of the article; and the subject-matter appears not to be notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your perception of what the article's intent might be isn't as important as the article's content, which is unbiased and informative. or the article's purpose, which is to provide further information from a blank link in another wikipedia article about this webcomic that was noted by a national print newspaper, the Chicago Tribune.--Lenkody (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem gentlemen is that you have to establish notability. The way to do that is to demonstrate this subject is notable and has been written about by established and reliable media. As a new comic, it may not meet the requisite criteria for inclusion. It's not a conspiracy, it's not an attack on any of you, it's just editors following the rules and guidelines of what is included and what isn't in this encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a list of restaurants who you think warrant entries. An eatery means more than a crafted work? A webcomic that gets more hits than anything with your name on it does not live up to "criteria"? You ARE biased, and sorely behind the times. Having mod powers on an encyclopedia site is not an excuse for a power trip, and not an excuse for you to ostracize something that is apparently lightyears beyond your grasp. I could even argue that any entry concerning a living person or ongoing work or existing business is just another advert, hypocrite. Richard Caldwell/nilskidoo


 * Delete as non-notable. Majoreditor (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Question any reviews or 3rd party references besides the Chicago Tribune? DGG (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tribune is a national newspaper, on par with the New York Times, LA Times, or Boston Globe. I did, however, include some links to news services that are quite respected inside the world of comics/entertainment.  Newsarama, for instance, is the gold standard for comics industry news.  According to Wikipedia, Newsarama has been quoted as a source of comics news by the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly.  The Publishers Weekly online column, The Beat, is also a respected source of comics news for the mainstream media.--Lenkody (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Something to keep in mind is that graphic novels are on the cutting edge of publishing (which is why Publishers Weekly has taken note of them), and that webcomics are on the cutting edge of graphic novels. Much like Wikipedia is on the cutting edge of encyclopedic information on the Internet.  These are valid cultural phenomenons that are just starting to poke through and be recognized by traditional media outlets as relevant.  I think Chicago:1968's being noted by the more tech savvy, progressive arms of the Chicago Tribune and Publishers Weekly is pretty notable given the unique challenges of Internet-based media to achieve "notability."--Lenkody (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Graphic novels are most certainly notable and have an article. What isn't clear is whether this particular comic is notable based on our guidelines. I haven't seen any sign of in depth coverage of this comic beyond brief mentions that acknowledge its existence. Maybe you should make your case to the New York Times and Washington Post?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The audio interview with the Chicago Tribune's RedEye columnist is certainly more than just a brief mention of the comic's existence.  Scroll down and listen to it.  It is an extended, in depth interview with myself and my collaborator.  Perhaps the NYT or the Post would be equally interested in a story about Chicago history as the Chicago Tribune is.  But, at that point, we're setting the bar awfully high for "notability," aren't we?  And since when was the credibility of the Tribune ever in question?  --Lenkody (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A blog entry of that type (part of Comic-con coverage) is significant, but an article in the paper would have made a stronger case. When established and reliable media determine the comic is notable and cover it, that will go a long way to support its inclusion in Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, the bar is set quite high for notability, but that's the point. The inclusion criteria on Wikipedia is significant coverage in reliable, third-party, published sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if multiple major news sources aren't talking about something, it doesn't belong here.  This is a core principle of Wikipedia.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong I think it's a good thing Wikipedia has such great standards.  But I don't think I'd have to dig too deep to find Wikipedia articles that don't meet the standards you've just stated - that the subject of an article must not only be noted by a paper of the Chicago Tribune's esteem, but by the Washington Post and New York Times, as well.  I assert that Chicago:1968 is notable because it has been noted by the local Chicago press (even nationally recognized outlets like the Trib), and the comics/entertainment media, like Newsarama and Publishers Weekly's online comics column.  Also, the comic is not an independently run operation.  It is featured content on the Shadowline website, an imprint of Image Comics.  Which is in a whole different league than a dude with a blog who puts comics on it.--Lenkody (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have tried your best to convince us that your webcomic is notable, and I don't think that any of us are at all convinced. "Chicago:1968" is one of hundreds of webcomics that exist on "Webcomics Nation", which permits anybody  to create and manage their own webcomics account.  But what many of us find worse is the use of Wikipedia to promote yourself.  I think it's great that people have an outlet for their artistic talents.  Wikipedia is a godsend for many a talented writer who has been blocked out of the world of publishing.  Wikipedia's standards are flexible enough that the editors are permitted to make their arguments about whether something is notable enough for its own article.   But Wikipedia also has some inflexible standards when it comes to self-promotion, and this particular internet site is not a vehicle for getting someone to notice someone's weekly internet comic strip.  It's clear that the article "Chicago:1968" is nothing more than a blue-link to insert into other articles on the online encyclopedia.  You can write words about and draw pictures of Mayor Daley and Abbie Hoffman on your corner of the internet.  But it's egotistical to edit an article about the famous (or infamous) Richard J. Daley in order to include a promo that "Richard J. Daley is a character in a webcomic to be found here".  The mere fact that the Trib mentioned an internet site while reminiscing about the '68 convention is not the attainment of fame.   I imagine that someone will write a comic, or make a great video, or sell stovepipe hats during Lincoln's bicentennial in time for February 2009, but that won't justify an article either.  I hope that some day that you make it into print, or even get syndicated in newspapers; or that you make it on to other internet sites.   But Chicago:1968's stay on Wikipedia must draw to a close. Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Mandsford, there are right ways and wrong ways to respond to a civil discussion here in the AfD section of Wikipedia and your "input" above is both rude and condescending. Not only that but you make assumptions that are not only incorrect but also ignorrant.  I think it's very sad that you are a representative of Wikipedia's "article selection committee" and hopefully your brashness and ill-formed opinions have not prevented other notable articles from receiving inclusion in the apparenly prestigious realm of Wikipedia.  May I recommend that you also make yourself familiar with these two particular portions of the Wikipedia:COI page:  "Importance of civility / During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions." and "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage."  I don't think that you or some of the other professional Wikipedia mods and editors in this discussion have abided by those official recommendations.Supermarc (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please educate yourself on the topic before you speak up, Mandsford. After reading your above comment I am to conclude that you did about two minutes worth of research with a deletion bias before posting that unbelievably condescending piece of garbage. First off this webcomic is NOT just carried on the "Webcomics Nation" site, it is also part of Shadowline Comics []. Now seeing by your blatant ignorance about the subject of webcomics and comics in general, I will tell (as others here have mentioned many times) that Shadowline is part of Image Comics[]. So to make it sound like this is simply a guy who threw up a webcomic on free site and is hoping to use Wikipedia as a mean of advertisement is incorrect. Wikipedia has a page about Image Comics which includes a link to one of its divisions, Shadowline. On the Shadowline page there is a link to projects that it currently working on, one of which is Chicago:1968. So please tell me why if someone who is reading up on Shadowline and sees a title like Chicago:1968 that grabs their interest that there can not be a Wiki page about it? Also your can save your "hopes" that maybe someday Len Kody will "make it into print" because he already has numerous times. Your comments about getting "syndicated in a newspaper" and reference to a "comic strip" only amplifies your ignorance on the subject. As I sat back rereading your comment and trying to figure out why you would lash out so inappropriately one line stuck out..."Wikipedia is a godsend for many a talented writer who has been blocked out of the world of publishing." I'm sorry you never made it in to the world of publishing, but stop trying to impose your outdated and uneducated view on a subject you know very little about. Maybe you should save your "hopes" about getting published or syndicated for yourself and someday you can stop hiding behind a keyboard. Until then, I would remove yourself from the article selection committee as not only do you embarress yourself but are detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * uh... yeah hate to toot my own horn on this point, but I have been published quite a few times already - . Doing comics on the web was more of an artistic choice, than a choice of necessity as you (Mandsford) have suggested. --Lenkody (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability HAS been established, just that your regulations are contradictory enough so as to block out any topics you yourself remain personally ignorant on. Mindsets like some of those here are the ones insistent that comics are but sunday funnies fare, or men in tights purporting acts of violence upon themselves, while in truth the medium is vastly more than that. The strip cited is historical fiction, though well researched and so educational. Web-comix in particular, as with all modes of technologically based forms of information/communication, are growing rapidly enough so that the standards of this cite must adapt with the times. Don't make me post links to the MANY forums on the net wherein wiki is openly criticized for just this manner of discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decan lude (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Beg your pardon, but I think I've made it clear by now that Chicago:1968 goes through an editorial process by a professional publishing company - ShadowLine Comics. It's true that I launched the comic from Webcomics Nation, and maintain my updates there.  But since then, I was invited to be part of the regularly updated content on the ShadowLine website by their editorial staff.  Jim Valentino had to okay the strip before he let it become part of his website's content.  ShadowLine is an imprint of Image Comics.  The comic has met the rigors of professional editors.  And they have chosen to attach their company's name to it.--Lenkody (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's as notable as you say it is, there should be plenty of references from reliable, third-party published sources proving so, and that's what we're looking for here. You also do realize that, as the author of this comic, you are strongly discouraged from editing this article, correct? Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:"...you are strongly discouraged from editing this article" Yeah. That makes sense.  When I saw the red link on the ShadowLine entry I clicked it and it brought me to a page asking me if I wanted to write an article on the subject.  So I did.  And, well, here we are.  If the article gets to stay, I'll leave all future edits to the hive mind.  That is the Wikipedia way, after all.--Lenkody (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.